'A Great Big Melting Pot: Exploring Patterns of Glass Supply, Consumption and Recycling in Roman...

A GREAT BIG MELTING POT: EXPLORING PATTERNS OFGLASS SUPPLY, CONSUMPTION AND RECYCLING IN

ROMAN COPPERGATE, YORK*

C. M. JACKSON†

Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK

and S. PAYNTER

English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD, UK

One hundred and ninety three glass fragments from the canabae in York were analysed (firstto fourth centuries). They fall into six compositional groups: antimony colourless (Sb), high-manganese (high-Mn), low-manganese (low-Mn), mixed antimony and manganese (Sb–Mn),high iron, manganese and titanium (HIMT) and plant ash. Some groups represent productiongroups, some of which appear to be in limited supply in this western outpost, but are moreprevalent elsewhere, and others reflect changing supply mechanisms. The majority of glassesfall into groups that demonstrate extensive recycling of glass. This has important implicationsfor determining provenance using trace elements and isotopes.

KEYWORDS: ROMAN GLASS, NATURALLY COLOURED, COLOURLESS, ANTIMONY,MANGANESE, PRODUCTION GROUPS, RECYCLING, BRITAIN, ICP–AES

THE ROMAN GLASS FROM COPPERGATE

Although perhaps best known for its Viking deposits (Hall 1984), the site at 16–22 Coppergate,York also produced deposits rich in Roman finds, including glass. The putative glass-making orglassworking remains have already been published (Jackson et al. 2003), but the site also yieldeda large assemblage of glass fragments, typical of a consumption assemblage from the first tofourth centuries and which is probably unrelated to the glassworking debris found at the site(Jackson 1992). The assemblage comprises forms that can be dated from the first to fourthcenturies and represents a microcosm of glass found in the western provinces at this period. Thescale of the assemblage is not surprising: Eboracum (Roman York) was an important Romancentre in Britain, occupied from ad 71 to 410, housing a fortress and large manufacturing andcivilian districts. Coppergate was outside the fortress, within the city walls, and is likely to havebeen a trading or manufacturing area as part of the canabae, although Roman remains from thesite have been largely robbed (Mainman 1990).

Within scientific research into Roman glass, the composition of colourless glass has beenwell studied, as has later glass from the mid-third and fourth centuries onwards (e.g., Freestoneet al. 2005; Jackson 2005; Paynter 2006; Silvestri et al. 2008; Foster and Jackson 2009,2010; Gallo et al. 2013), but naturally coloured glass of the first to third centuries has oftenbeen neglected. ‘Naturally coloured’ here describes transparent glass with a range of mostly

*Received 17 June 2014; accepted 22 October 2014†Corresponding author: email [email protected]

bs_bs_banner

Archaeometry ••, •• (2015) ••–•• doi: 10.1111/arcm.12158

© 2015 The Authors.Archaeometry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of OxfordThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

blue–green hues caused by small amounts of iron oxide in the glass (Price and Cottam 1998),as opposed to containing intentionally added colourants. The Coppergate assemblage is sig-nificant because it includes naturally coloured, as well as colourless, glass in many commonforms from a long-lived site, including many fragments that date from the second and thirdcenturies. This study is therefore able to analyse a large corpus of material from a single siteto demonstrate the availability of different raw glass types, and the extent of recycled glasswithin the trading network operating throughout the Roman world. By identifying changingglass compositions through time and noting which compositional types were used to manu-facture different objects, the study will begin to fill a void in our knowledge of the consump-tion of glasses in the far north-west provinces. Within a system where glass was centrallyproduced and then distributed and reworked elsewhere, glass groups found in a British contextcan be compared to those found elsewhere across the empire (e.g., Arletti et al. 2008; Schibilleet al. 2012; Gallo et al. 2013) to enable a better understanding of the complex web of themovement of raw glasses, the consumption of raw and recycled glass at different glass work-shops, through to the use of different glass types in finished objects at settlement sites over aperiod of 400 years.

The samples chosen for analysis are representative of the glass artefacts found at the site. Theuse of diagnostic pieces from recognizable objects of known date allows a relative chronology tobe determined for the different compositional groups of glass (Price and Cottam 1998), resultingin a broad timeline for each composition and form of the glass artefacts in circulation (especiallyimportant because of the disturbance of contexts at this site). The number of diagnostic formsincluded was limited because the analytical technique required relatively large samples anddestructive sampling; therefore the use of non-diagnostic fragments provides further evidence fordifferent compositions at the site. A variety of forms, typical of a large consumption assemblage,are represented, including vessels, such as bottles, cups, jars and beakers, and window glass,some produced by blowing and some by casting. The range of vessels shows that occupation atthe site spanned the first to fourth centuries. These include first-century forms (Isings 3, pillarmoulded bowls), globular jugs (first to early second centuries, Isings 52), cylindrical cups(second to third centuries, Isings 85b), cylindrical bottles (late second to early third centuries,Isings 50/51) and fourth-century conical beakers (Isings 106). This group of glasses is one of thelargest assemblages of common types and forms from the late first to fourth centuries—but mostimportantly from the second and third centuries—to be analysed from Britain and as suchprovides a valuable data set of chemical compositions for naturally coloured and colourless glassin this period.

THE PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION OF ROMAN GLASS

Roman glass was typically made with sand and natron (or trona) as the alkali, and it is nowgenerally believed, as postulated by Sayre (1964) and Velde (1990), that the consistent compo-sition seen in most Roman glass is because it was manufactured in large installations and thentraded as raw glass. It was subsequently shaped into utilitarian objects at the many glassworkinginstallations throughout the provinces. This hypothesis has since been strengthened by findingsof large glass blocks, which appear to be the remains of broken raw glass slabs in variouslocations around the Roman world (Price 2005), and by the analysis of glass to determine traceelement and isotopic compositions, which has placed these installations, for late Roman andByzantine glass in particular, in the Eastern Mediterranean, in Syro-Palestine and in Egypt(Freestone et al. 2002; Foy et al. 2003; Brems and Degryse 2014). Thus a combination of

2 C. M. Jackson and S. Paynter

© 2015 The Authors.Archaeometry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford, Archaeometry ••, •• (2015) ••–••

archaeological investigation and chemical analysis has now allowed a small number of manu-facturing groups with tentatively assigned provenances to be established, especially for the fourthcentury.

This paper uses the glass compositions from Coppergate, York, UK to establish which groupsof glass were present in the north-west provinces from the first to fourth centuries and howdifferent glass compositions were used. Only naturally coloured glass, which has a blue–greenhue, and colourless glass are presented here, as these have not been modified with colourants oropacifiers and so form the best data set for examining the different manufacturing groups incirculation. The chemical groups determined in the analysis of the Coppergate glass will bediscussed in the context of known glass types and also new groups or subgroups determinedwhere the glass does not fit clearly into a defined group. The reasons for the development of newgroups will be discussed in the context of our understanding of glass manufacture in the Romanperiod.

METHODS

The glass samples were solubilized using the method devised for silicates and analysed byICP–AES at the Geology Department, Royal Holloway University of London. The materials,methods, instrumentation and data validation are given in Jackson et al. (2003). Although thesample dissolution method loses silica by volatilization, it has the advantage of providing a large,accurate data set, including elements at major, minor and trace concentrations. Eleven elementsare given as oxides in wt% and 10 as ppm. Lead and antimony concentrations were calculatedseparately using prepared single element standards and Corning and NIST glass standards ofknown composition. A subsection of the data has been presented previously (Jackson 2005) in thecontext of colourless glass; these data are discussed here as part of the Coppergate assemblage asa whole and in the light of the production groups that have been identified more recently, ordefined here.

RESULTS: IDENTIFICATION OF COMPOSITIONAL GROUPS

The results of 193 analyses of naturally coloured and colourless glass dating from the first tofourth centuries are presented in Appendix 1. The glass can be defined by six compositionalgroups: (1) antimony colourless (Sb); (2) low-manganese (low-Mn); (3) high-manganese (high-Mn); (4) high iron, manganese and titanium (HIMT) (including weak and strong variants); (5)plant ash; and (6) mixed antimony–manganese (Sb–Mn) (with the possible inclusion of a seventhgroup of ‘Levantine 1’; see below). The mean compositions of the groups can be seen in Table 1.In addition, there are eight outliers that do not clearly fit into any of these groups.

Although other compositional differences relating to the primary glass-forming componentsused in manufacture will be discussed, the groups can broadly be described by their concentra-tions of antimony and manganese (Fig. 1 (a)). Comparative data from previously publishedanalyses to support the definitions of these groups are presented in Appendix 2.

Antimony colourless (Sb)

This group of colourless glasses is well represented in assemblages from the first to thirdcenturies. It is a very coherent group, manufactured with high-purity sands, containing lowconcentrations of alumina, titanium, calcium and often iron, and is also soda rich (Jackson 2005

Glass supply, consumption and recycling in Roman Coppergate, York 3


Table 1 Means and ranges of the compositional groups identified in the glass analysed from Coppergate, York (notethat ranges are affected by sample size and relate to this data set only). Key as in Appendix 1

No.Sb Sb–Mn High-Mn Low-Mn HIMT2(W) HIMT1(S) Plant ash44 80 13 26 19 1 2

Wt%Al2O3 1.97 2.40 2.92 2.67 2.38 2.62 2.28

1.62–2.49 1.78–2.83 2.65–3.28 2.28–3.04 2.08–4.11 2.25–2.31Fe2O3 0.37 0.58 0.46 0.31 0.63 1.17 0.75

0.22–0.80 0.27–0.98 0.30–0.64 0.24–0.40 0.32–0.83 0.70–0.79MgO 0.48 0.58 0.63 0.50 0.71 1.27 1.35

0.3–0.87 0.39–0.86 0.51–0.88 0.43–0.65 0.42–0.88 1.29–1.41CaO 5.82 6.59 8.48 7.66 6.19 6.48 8.07

4.49–7.54 5.19–8.15 7.86–9.04 7.02–8.24 4.86–7.66 7.25–8.89Na2O 19.39 18.69 16.81 17.47 19.41 19.26 17.82

17.99–20.62 16.20–20.42 14.76–18.39 16.03–19.87 17.20–20.46 16.92–18.71K2O 0.51 0.82 0.68 0.67 0.87 0.56 1.61

0.36–0.74 0.47–1.56 0.46–0.85 0.46–1.71 0.51–1.26 1.51–1.71TiO2 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.23 0.14

0.04–0.13 0.05–0.14 0.07–0.09 0.06–0.08 0.07–0.14 1.12–0.16P2O5 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.40

0.02–0.08 0.04–0.19 0.08–0.19 0.10–0.15 0.04–0.28 0.35–0.45MnO 0.03 0.40 1.15 0.34 0.87 1.8 0.12

0.01–0.09 0.10–1.01 0.84–1.66 0.02–0.79 0.65–1.03 ∼PbO 0.04 0.06 0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01

b.d.–0.39 b.d.–0.45 b.d.–0.02 b.d.–0.02 b.d.–0.05 b.d.–0.01Sb2O5 0.54 0.35 0.04 <0.01 0.10 0.03 0.18

0.05–0.89 0.11–0.69 0.01–0.08 0.01–0.01 0.01–0.17 0.13–0.23

ppmBa 147 229 432 243 273 342 191

127–165 149–341 282–581 203–310 218–467 189–192Cu 16 155 18 15 88 51 41

5–78 14–1718 9–27 4–39 11–219 34–47Li 10 17 10 8 18 16 9

5–18 7–59 7–14 6–14 8–32 8–9Ni 12 16 19 15 19 29 13

8–19 7–24 13–24 6–49 13–22 12–14Sr 414 415 506 430 445 588 642

286–579 334–516 450–569 368–537 348–675 580–703V 9 17 25 15 22 35 15

5–16 7–29 13–62 7–27 19–28 13–16Y 7 8 9 9 8 10 7

60–9 6–10 8–10 8–10 9–9 ∼Zn 21 36 17 17 36 31 32

15–36 21–108 1–25 11–28 18–57 30–34La 11 12 11 11 12 13 11

10–12 10–14 9–13 10–12 11–13 ∼Ce 18 20 20 19 21 25 20

14–23 13–26 17–24 16–24 16–24 18–21



0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Sb2O

3(w

t%)

MnO (wt%)

Mixing of recycled Sb-Mn with low-Mn glass

Mixing of Sb and High-Mn glass

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MnO

(wt%

)

(a)

(b)

CaO (wt%)

Sb Low-Mn Sb-Mn High-Mn HIMT2 HIMT1


Mixing of Sb and High-Mn glass

Figure 1 (a) A plot of manganese versus antimony oxides for the Roman glass from Coppergate, York, showing thespread of manganese and antimony oxide contents for the mixed glass, between the Sb and high-Mn glass compositions.(b) A plot of calcium versus manganese oxide for the Roman glass from Coppergate, York, showing how the lime andmanganese contents are correlated in the Sb–Mn glass, best fitting a mixture of high-manganese (high-Mn) glass withantimony colourless (Sb) glass.



(groups 1a and 1b); Paynter 2006; and reviewed in Paynter and Jackson forthcoming) (Figs 2 (a)and 2 (b)); the decolourizer is antimony. Paynter (2006) suggests there is a variant of thiscomposition, which is low in lime, alumina and barium and often contains very high levels ofantimony (Sb/low-Ca); and is found amongst very early, high-quality vessels (Appendix 2). Thisvariant is not present in the glasses analysed here (Fig. 2 (c)). Similarly, the presence of(>300 ppm) lead in some early colourless Roman glass (Baxter et al. 2005), suggested by Paynter(2010) to derive from a lead-bearing antimony source, is seen in only three examples, one ofwhich is dated to the first century (Appendix 1). Current research suggests that the antimonycolourless glass may originate in the Eastern Mediterranean (Ganio et al. 2012), although Italyhas also been postulated as a possible origin for glass with these compositional characteristics(Brems and Degryse 2014). The absence of the Sb/low-Ca glass composition and the lownumbers of lead-bearing antimony examples reflect the date of the Coppergate assemblage. Sincemost diagnostic fragments are from the second and third centuries, they postdate these earliercompositional traits, and few high-status vessels of the type typically made from the rarerSb/low-Ca composition are represented.

Low-manganese (low-Mn)

This group of naturally coloured glasses, predominantly blue–green or ‘aqua’, generally containslow concentrations of manganese of up to 0.8 wt%, but no antimony (Fig. 1). This glass tends tocontain less soda, but more alumina, than the Sb colourless glass (Figs 2 (a) and 2 (b)). Thisnaturally coloured glass is known from Roman assemblages elsewhere and is the dominant, raw,blue–green glass by the first century, and is thought to be manufactured in the Syria-Palestineregion (Foy et al. 2000) (Appendix 2). The Coppergate samples also contain a subset of the ‘lightgreen’ examples, which contain very little manganese oxide (less than 0.1 wt%), but otherwise fitthe general compositional patterning for low-Mn glasses.

High-manganese (high-Mn)

This composition is characterized by high concentrations of manganese (0.8–1.5 wt%) but inother respects is similar to the low-Mn glass, but with slightly higher calcium and lower soda(Figs 1, 2 (b) and 2 (c)). The lower MnO threshold of 0.8 wt% was selected because it is theapproximate minimum seen in manganese decolourized glass, such as the first-century colourlessexamples from Adria studied by Gallo et al. (2013) (Appendices 1 and 2). The higher MnOthreshold of 1.5 wt% for this group was selected to exclude deliberately coloured purple glass. Inmany reported instances, the high-Mn composition produces a colourless glass, especially wherethe manganese concentrations are at the higher end of the range (see Vichy et al. 2003; Silvestriet al. 2008; Foster and Jackson 2010; Schibille et al. 2012; Gliozzo et al. 2013; Paynter andJackson forthcoming); however, all the samples analysed here have a blue or light green hue (onenearly colourless) and cannot be distinguished visually from other blue–green or naturallycoloured glasses (e.g., low-Mn).

The separation of Levantine 1, low-Mn and high-Mn is in terms of manganese content anddate, since the base glass composition appears very similar otherwise (Foster and Jackson 2010);this might suggest they have a similar provenance or are a continuation of a manufacturingtradition (Appendix 2). Taking into account the similarities in composition, three late Romansamples from Coppergate (5495, 13535 and 14069), assigned here to the high-Mn group, may bethe same as the Levantine 1a group of Foster and Jackson (2009).



From the fourth century onwards, the compositional range of manganese-containing glassbecomes even more diverse, as illustrated by Foster and Jackson (2010) and Meek (2013), whohave identified two groups of colourless high-manganese glasses, differing in their soda andcalcium concentrations. Meek’s (2013) type 2b matches the high-Mn glasses here. Meek’s 2a and

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Al2O

3(w

t%)

K2O (wt%)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Na 2

O (w

t%)

CaO (wt%)Sb Low-Mn Sb-Mn High-Mn HIMT2 HIMT1


(a)

(b)

Figure 2 A plot of oxides for the Roman glass from Coppergate, York, showing the different glass groups represented:(a) Al2O3 versus K2O; (b) Na2O versus CaO; (c) Ba versus MnO; (d) Cu versus PbO. In all charts, the Sb–Mn groupshows significant mixing.



Foster and Jackson’s (2010) 2a have higher concentrations of soda and less lime (Manganese lowlime in Appendix 2); these glasses also have slightly elevated concentrations of magnesium, ironand titanium oxides and may resemble weak HIMT (below). The colourless 2b in Foster andJackson (2010) has high lime and high soda, which indicates the presence of another group notrepresented here, and further illustrates the varied nature of manganese-containing glass from thefourth century.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Ba (p

pm)

MnO (wt%)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

PbO

(wt%

)

Cu (ppm)



(c)

(d)

Figure 2 (Continued)



Mixed antimony and manganese (Sb–Mn)

This is the largest compositional group amongst the analysed glass. Sb–Mn glass contains bothmanganese and antimony, which were probably introduced by recycling the main antimony- ormanganese-containing raw glass at the time (see Discussion). Slightly raised concentrations ofother elements, such as copper and occasionally lead in the Sb–Mn glass and the large range ofsoda, calcium and alumina concentrations, nevertheless correlated, also suggest that this is amixed recycled group rather than a primary production group (Figs 2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (d)). As newtypes of raw glass are introduced and start to be recycled, such as HIMT in the third and fourthcenturies, even greater variation is seen within the Sb–Mn glass group.

Sb–Mn glass has a range of hues depending on the relative proportions of antimony tomanganese, and the concentration of iron oxide present. Published examples of Sb–Mn glassescontaining a larger proportion of antimony (from antimony decolourized glass) are more likely tobe colourless and so have previously been discussed in terms of colourless Roman glass assem-blages (Mirti et al. 1993; Jackson 2005 (2b); Paynter 2006; Silvestri et al. 2008). However, thosesamples containing a smaller proportion of the antimony to manganese, or those that containmore iron oxide, are more likely to be naturally coloured blue, blue–green or green, and havebeen discussed along with naturally coloured glasses (e.g., Mirti et al. 1993; Jackson 1994;Silvestri 2008) (Appendix 2). Regardless of their colour, they are discussed as a single compo-sitional group here.

High iron, manganese and titanium glass (HIMT)

As the name suggests, HIMT glass can be distinguished by elevated levels of iron, manganese andtitanium relative to other glass types (Freestone 1994; Foy et al. 2003). These features, along withhigher soda and lower lime concentrations, distinguish it from other manganese-bearing glasstypes such as high-Mn and low-Mn glass (Fig. 2 (b)). The glass assigned to this group displaysa broad range of compositions, which Freestone (1994) ascribed to the mixing of two componentsduring glass production (as opposed to mixing with other glass types during the recyclingprocess). Evidence for further dilution of the HIMT composition through recycling has beenidentified in some examples from Western Europe, which show antimony, lead and coppercontamination (Foy et al. 2003; Foster and Jackson 2009; Jackson and Price 2012). However, itis impossible to determine the extent of recycling in HIMT glasses, as recycling using glass of thesame composition (e.g., HIMT with HIMT) would be undetectable.

HIMT, thought to originate in Egypt (Foy et al. 2003; Freestone et al. 2005), is increasinglycommon from about the mid-fourth century (Mirti et al. 1993; Freestone et al. 2005; Foster andJackson 2009) (Appendix 2). Further chronological patterns have also been noted within thegroup: Foster and Jackson (2009) suggested that a weaker variant of HIMT (their HIMT 2) wasintroduced in Britain around ad 330, slightly preceding a stronger type (their HIMT 1). Foy et al.(2003) determined that a yet more concentrated variant (their group 1) was in use in the fifthcentury across a considerable area, before ‘weakening’ again in the sixth to eighth centuries (theirgroup 2). The HIMT glass in the Coppergate assemblage is predominantly HIMT2, with onepossible example of strong HIMT1 glass. The Coppergate weak HIMT examples also contain lowlevels of antimony oxide, which suggests that these may be a recycled combination of HIMTglass with an antimony-bearing glass, such as the Sb colourless or recycled Sb–Mn types. Thehigh concentrations of potash in some of the HIMT samples from Coppergate (above 1 wt%,Fig. 2 (a)) may also suggest contamination through recycling (see Discussion).



Levantine 1 glass

This term has been used to describe glass of the fourth century and later, which is high in limeand alumina and low in soda (Appendix 2) (Brill 1988; Freestone et al. 2000; Foster and Jackson2009). In terms of bulk composition, Levantine 1 glass is similar to the earlier glass groupshigh-Mn and, to a lesser extent, low-Mn. However, it generally does not contain any decolourizer(Freestone et al. 2000; but see summary in Foster and Jackson 2009) and this also differentiatesit from most other first- to fourth-century types. Analysis of glass from tank furnaces at Apolloniahas demonstrated that this glass was manufactured on the Levantine coast (Foy et al. 2003; Talet al. 2004). Although fourth-century glass is present at Coppergate, no samples of Levantine 1composition were identified (but see the section on high-Mn glasses). This outcome is notunexpected, as Foster and Jackson (2009) note that this glass is poorly represented in late Romanassemblages in Britain.

Plant-ash glass

Two glass samples, one from a cast window and the other from a bottle, which have mixedconcentrations of antimony and manganese, also contain elevated concentrations of potash,magnesia (both around 1.5 wt%) and phosphorus (around 0.4 wt%) (Appendix 1 and Table 1).This may indicate that these glasses were made wholly or in part using soda plant ashes, or fromrecycled glass including some made with high-soda plant ashes or were potentially contaminatedwith fuel ash (Paynter 2008). Roman glasses made from plant ashes have been noted in othercontexts, including strongly coloured first-century glasses (e.g., Arletti et al. 2008; Jackson et al.2009; Gallo et al. 2013; Jackson and Cottam in prep.). Plant-ash compositions tend to be rare inmost Roman glass assemblages and have only been noted relatively recently; their provenancehas been a matter of speculation.

Outliers

Eight samples do not fall clearly into any of the groups defined above (Appendix 1 (OUT)). Theseoutliers have characteristics that are similar to one of the defined groups but differ in particularrespects (e.g., 10203 could potentially be Sb–Mn, but has exceptionally high concentrations ofmanganese; 14072 has low soda but higher alumina and mixed antimony–manganese). There aretoo few of these to speculate about whether they might indicate the existence of separatecompositional groups, or are atypical examples of existing compositions (with one or twoelemental anomalies), but they are included in case similar examples are found in future studies.

DISCUSSION

Recycling and contamination

By far the largest group represented is the Sb–Mn glass. The range of compositions in this groupcan be approximated as a mixing line between the contemporary raw glass types in circulation:the Sb colourless glass and the high-Mn glass, illustrated in Figures 1 (a) and 1 (b). This mixingof antimony and high-manganese glasses may be explained through selective recycling.Colourless glass was a valuable raw material, with the Sb colourless glass in particular reservedfor finewares. It may therefore be anticipated that glassworkers would recycle colourless glass



separately wherever possible, combining Sb colourless glass and the high-Mn glass, or usinghigh-Mn glass to extend the antimony colourless glass, even though much of the high-Mn glassoften has a slight greyish or greenish tinge. This would explain the incorporation of bothantimony and manganese into the glass, and the correlation between these elements. However, thelevels of titanium, iron, potassium and copper oxides detected in the Sb–Mn mixed glass arehigher than would be expected for a straightforward mixture of the two Sb and high-Mnraw glass types (Paynter 2006) (Table 1); other factors must be contributing to the overallcomposition.

Upon subsequent re-melting, all recycled glass including colourless, would gradually spoil byabsorbing iron-bearing contaminants, eventually acquiring a blue–green tinge. Experimentalwork has shown that, during re-melting, glass absorbs aluminium, titanium, potassium and ironoxides from clay crucibles or furnace linings, as well as potassium oxide vapour generated by thefurnace fuel, and lesser amounts of calcium, magnesium and phosphorus oxides from settling fuelashes (Paynter 2008). In addition, fragments of glass-working waste are sometimes stronglycoloured by iron oxide scale from the blowing iron. These extraneous materials would ultimatelycontaminate the glass, which would acquire a stronger blue–green hue. This may lead to therecycled ‘colourless’ glass becoming blue–green and eventually being used as, and recycled with,blue–green stock, as can be seen in Table 1, where the Sb–Mn glass often has higher concentra-tions of elements associated with recycling.

The variation in concentration is because these glasses will have different recycling histories,with recycled and raw glass combined in variable proportions an unknown number of times, andso it is not possible to quantify the extent of recycling from the compositions. The amount ofcrucible and vapour contamination in the glass depends upon the crucible composition, thetemperature and time of melting and the number of times the glass has been re-melted (Paynter2008, 208). Figures 1 (a) and 1 (b) do show, however, that a small number of samples arecontaminated by other naturally coloured glasses in circulation at different periods—for example,low-Mn or HIMT (Foster and Jackson 2009)—indicating that some of the glass has probablybeen recycled at least twice: first as part of a colourless batch and subsequently, once spoiled, aspart of a naturally coloured batch. Consequently, the contaminants introduced during repeatedrecycling, potentially with many different glass compositions, account for the discrepanciesbetween the predicted and actual composition of the Sb–Mn mixed glass.

To demonstrate the effect of contamination during recycling, analyses of the Romanglassworking waste (partly melted material, drips and glass from inside melting pots), also fromCoppergate, York (Jackson 1992; Jackson et al. 1998, 2003), have been plotted (Figs 3 (a) and3 (b)), together with the typical composition of the glass-melting crucibles from Coppergate, andthe average compositions of Sb colourless glass, high-Mn glass and the mixed Sb–Mn glass. Inmost of the waste glass and the mixed Sb–Mn glass, the concentrations of aluminium, titanium,potassium, phosphorus and iron oxides are elevated relative to the compositions of the originalunaltered colourless glass types in a manner consistent with crucible and fuel vapour contami-nation. Some of the waste glasses have much higher concentrations of contaminants because theywere in direct contact with the crucible wall.

Comparing antimony and manganese decolourized glass

At Coppergate, high-manganese (high-Mn) glass was used only rarely for high-status vessels,and predominantly during periods when the antimony decolourized glass was scarce; forexample, earlier in the first century and then again in the fourth century and later. This pattern is



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fe2O

3(w

t%)

TiO2 (wt%)

Sb-Mn working waste Sb Low-Mn Crucible Sb-Mn

Sb-Mn working waste Sb Low-Mn Crucible Sb-Mn

Cruciblecontamina�on

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Al2O

3(w

t%)

(a)

(b)

K2O (wt%)

Cruciblecontamina�on

Fuel vapour contamina�on

Figure 3 (a) A plot of titanium versus iron oxide for the Roman glass-working waste (Jackson et al. 2003) and the Sb-Mnglass from this study, showing varying levels of crucible contamination. (b) A plot of potassium versus aluminium oxidefor the Roman glass waste (Jackson 1992), showing varying levels of contamination from crucibles and fuel vapour. Asingle data point each shows an average composition for Sb and Low-Mn glass.



repeated elsewhere (Foy et al. 2003; Foster and Jackson 2009). This may be in part because thecolour of high-Mn glass is more variable. While a higher concentration of manganese oftenproduces a colourless glass (see, e.g., Foster and Jackson 2009), it sometimes has a blue–greenhue, as is observed in all the high-Mn glasses at Coppergate. The final colour of the high-Mnglass, whether blue–green or colourless, would have been influenced by several factors includingthe iron oxide and manganese oxide content, and the furnace atmosphere when the glass was lastmelted, all playing major roles (Bingham and Jackson 2008).

Figure 4 shows the iron and manganese oxide contents of Roman high-Mn glass samples, fromthe literature and this study, divided according to the final colour of the glass. The colourlesshigh-Mn samples tend to have very low levels of iron oxide (of around 0.3 wt% or less);conversely, high-Mn samples that contain slightly higher levels of iron oxide (around 0.6 wt%)are often a greenish colour, despite manganese oxide being present in excess of 1 wt%. Thisshows that the colour of the manganese decolourized glass is more sensitive to the iron oxidecontent, with slightly elevated levels resulting in a blue–green hue.

Therefore, the wide range of blue and green hues observed in the Coppergate high-manganeseglass may be because the original batch(es) inadvertently contained slightly higher levels of ironoxide, the colour being more difficult to neutralize with manganese, or because a colourless batchof high-Mn glass was subsequently contaminated during recycling. As a result, the high-Mn glassidentified in Britain, which had most probably undergone successive re-melting, is often blue–green (e.g., Jackson et al. 1991). The same is true of any recycled Sb–Mn glass containing ahigh-Mn component. In contrast, the antimony decolourized glass remains colourless even withelevated levels of iron oxide; some of the colourless samples reported here (Appendix 1) containup to 0.8 wt% iron oxide.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

MnO

(wt%

)

Fe2O3 (wt%)

High-Mn IF (blue-green) High-Mn IF (colourless) High-Mn CG (blue-green) High-Mn Th (colourless)

Colourless Blue-green

Figure 4 High-Mn glass from Thamusida (Th, Gliozzo et al. 2013), Coppergate (CG, this study) and the Iulia Felix (IF,Silvestri 2008; Silvestri et al. 2008); samples to the top left are visually colourless, whereas samples towards the bottomright are blue–green.



Glass supply and use through time

The large and varied Coppergate assemblage includes examples of multiple glass groups, someidentified here and others defined previously, but all have parallels elsewhere in Europe. There-fore, the Coppergate glass fits a broader pattern of glass production, circulation and consumption,which changes over time, both in terms of the supply of raw or recycled glasses and the types ofvessels used in the Roman world (Appendix 2).

The antimony colourless glass was used for fine tableware; there are no window fragments andonly rarely bottles. The samples in this group, such as the faceted beaker dated to the second orthird century and the Isings 21 beaker, are of high quality. The data also further illustrate how theSb colourless glass composition changes over time, particularly with respect to the diminishingantimony oxide content (Paynter 2006; Paynter and Jackson forthcoming). Previously identified,early variants of antimony colourless glass (Sb/low-Ca or samples with >300 ppm of lead) arepoorly represented in the assemblage, probably because the majority of the Coppergate antimonyglasses are second/third century. There are, however, a number of the late second- and earlythird-century Sb samples that contain atypically high levels of lime and alumina, with low levelsof antimony (Figs 1 (a) and 1 (b); Appendix 1, ‘Sb/high-Ca’ samples), which suggests that theremay be a chronologically later subgroup as well.

The range of forms seen outside Britain in high-Mn glass—for example, the colourlessexamples from the Iulia Felix wreck (Silvestri et al. 2008)—suggest that this glass was predomi-nantly used for window glass and bottles up to the third century. The Coppergate assemblagemirrors this, with windows, bottles and jugs, in an extended range of colours. However, by thelate third to fourth centuries, more high-quality tablewares are also present in this glass (e.g.,Isings 106), and this is also seen in other fourth-century assemblages (Foster and Jackson 2010;Schibille et al. 2012), illustrating a chronological change in the availability of this compositionalgroup over time.

There may also be chronological variation in composition, since later samples in thisassemblage (fourth century) contain higher levels of manganese oxide, in some cases inexcess of 1 wt%, whereas earlier samples contain less. Glass with similarly high levels ofmanganese has been reported elsewhere from the late second or early third centuries (Ganioet al. 2012; Gliozzo et al. 2013) onwards, but it seems poorly represented in Britain until alater date, the island receiving only limited supply. The increased incidence of this glass atCoppergate in the fourth century could be related to the scarcity of the Sb colourless glass bythis time; hence the need to source an alternative glass for finewares (Paynter and Jacksonforthcoming).

No window glass was found in the naturally coloured, low-manganese (low-Mn) glass, butsome bottles and a variety of vessels are represented, predominantly tablewares from the firstcentury, including Isings 3 (cast pillar moulded bowls) and Isings 12 (Hofheim cups) forms.Nearly all of the diagnostic fragments are from the first or second centuries. This glass type mayrepresent the blue–green Judean glass mentioned in the edicts of Diocletian, whereas the Sb-glassis more likely to be the glass described as Alexandrian (Barag 1987). In Britain, however, it wouldseem that the supply of low-Mn glass was limited, and that the recycled Sb–Mn glass largelyserved the same function as the low-Mn glass but was more readily available. Therefore, themixed Sb–Mn glass becomes dominant in the second and third centuries; it is visually identicaland would appear so to the glassworker.

Overall, the most common glass composition amongst the samples was recycled blue–greenmixed antimony and manganese glass. Sb–Mn glass is represented in the assemblage by a variety



of different forms and dates, including cast and blown window glass fragments, a large group ofbottles of different styles and a range of blown and cast vessels, including cups, beakers, bowls,jugs and flasks, as well as a hairpin shank. Many fragments in this composition are utilitarianitems such as bottles or windows, with a requirement for volume rather than quality. None of thevessels that could be identified represented high-status finds. This compositional group spannedthe first to fourth centuries, suggested by the date range of vessel types, including Isings 3 (firstcentury) and Isings 85 (second to mid-third century) (Price and Cottam 1998) and a blownwindow fragment that may be a fourth-century example. The longevity of the group is notsurprising, as it represents a mixed recycled glass that may have included many differentcompositional groups through time. Interestingly, the range of different types of vessel glass inthis group is similar to that for low-Mn blue–green glass and so the two may not have beendifferentiated on reworking.

The HIMT glass has been used to make cups and beakers, jugs and bottles, and those that couldbe dated (e.g., Isings 96/106) put this group securely in the fourth century, as anticipated fromstudies of other late Roman assemblages (Freestone et al. 2005; Foster and Jackson 2009;Jackson and Price 2012). The proportion of each form reflects the composition of glass assem-blages in general at this time, when tablewares were more common than bottles. The predomi-nance of HIMT2, the slightly earlier, weaker variant of HIMT, which tends to show moreevidence of recycling with other glass compositions, may suggest that when the supply of glassreached northern Britain it had undergone a relatively long life cycle.

Thus the compositional picture, allied to securely dated forms from the site, indicates thatglassworkers in Britain had only limited access to raw glass types, whereas recycled glass wasreadily available. The data also demonstrate that some forms were made more readily with eitherraw or recycled glass (whether in Britain or elsewhere) or were manufactured in centres that hadspecific glass supplies.

The new definition of the three groups—namely high-Mn, low-Mn and Sb–Mn glasses—allows a more nuanced picture of glass consumption to be realized.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of this assemblage provides a picture of the consumption of Roman glassfrom the first to fourth centuries in an urban setting and gives greater detail about the differentglass compositional groups that were circulating at this time throughout the Roman world,and particularly those reaching Britain. This study confirms that the dominant compositionfor high-quality colourless tableware was antimony colourless, but that the composition ofthis glass appears to change chronologically. Compositional subgroups have been identifiedbased on calcium concentrations and the decrease in antimony over time (Paynter 2006;Paynter and Jackson forthcoming). By the late third or early fourth centuries, it appearsthat there were difficulties sourcing this glass in Britain and elsewhere (Sayre 1963; Foy et al.2003) since alternatives, such as high-Mn glass and variants of HIMT glass, were increasinglyused (Foster and Jackson 2009, 2010; Jackson and Price 2012). At the same time, tin-basedopacifiers replace antimony-based ones in opaque glass (Turner and Rooksby 1959),which suggests that the increasing difficulty of obtaining the antimony decolourizer may havebeen a contributory factor in the rapid decline of antimony colourless glass in the fourthcentury.

In the first and early second centuries, unaltered raw low-manganese glass makes up agood proportion of the blue–green or greenish glass used more for common tableware and



storage vessels, but by the later second and third centuries recycled mixed Sb–Mn glass domi-nates.

The high-manganese glass is not well represented in the Coppergate assemblage until the laterthird and fourth centuries. However, it appears to be common in bottle and window assemblagesfrom the late second and early third centuries in Continental Europe and further afield, and thereare some examples from the western provinces in the first century.

A significant finding is the very high number of samples that show clear evidence of recy-cling. Sb–Mn glass, made from a mixture of the antimony colourless and the high-manganeseglass, appears to dominate blue–green assemblages in Britain, and was used for everythingexcept the highest-quality tablewares. The high-Mn component of this recycled glass seemsrelatively uncommon in Britain, so perhaps much of the mixing took place elsewhere toproduce Sb–Mn recycled glass, which then reached Britain ready-made, although there isample evidence for glassworkers re-melting and using Sb–Mn glass in Britain (Jackson et al.1991).

The Coppergate assemblage illustrates how contamination of the glass during recycling byceramic crucibles, furnace structures and other types of glass influences both the compositionand colour of the glass. Some glass which was probably colourless or nearly colourless initially,eventually acquired a blue–green hue. Contaminated blue–green recycled glass was then morelikely to be further mixed with other blue–green glass types, such as low-Mn or HIMT, depend-ing on the date. This Sb–Mn recycled glass is known to have been melted and worked inBritain, as this composition is seen in the glassworking waste at the sites of Mancetter andLeicester, and it was clearly used for the manufacture of glass-hungry items such as windowsand bottles and for more common vessel forms (Jackson et al. 1991). At the extremes of theRoman world in the second and third centuries, this recycled mixture appears to have becomemore readily available than the raw low-Mn blue–green glass. Since the Sb–Mn compositionresulted from the dilution and recycling of antimony decolourized glass, it follows the samepattern of decline in the fourth century; HIMT glass, which is also often recycled, becomesincreasingly common in its place.

The assemblage from Coppergate therefore illustrates the different compositional typesreaching the western edges of the Roman world, but also how the composition and appearanceof glass changes once it has been through more than one ‘great big melting pot’. The recycledantimony–manganese glass makes up more than 40% of the analysed glass. This has importantimplications for trace element and isotopic analysis, because if the chemical composition of theglass has been affected by glass mixing, ceramic crucibles and furnace materials, then the traceelement and isotopic composition of the glass is likely to have been affected too. As onereferee suggests, the ‘big melting pot’ is not entirely homogenizing all of the glass, and com-positional groups can still be identified. However, these groups are the dominant primaryglasses reaching their market in that particular period and as such recycling becomes almostinvisible, because like is being mixed with like. It is clear from the data set that much of theglass is reused, perhaps over many years, providing a large reservoir for re-melting, againstwhich rarer compositional groups, perhaps made on a smaller scale, traded less extensively orin decline, are more difficult to detect—for example, the products of the subordinate glassmanufacturing centres referred to by Pliny the Elder (Eichholz 1962), or plant-ash glass typesthat may be the products of an earlier glass industry. These glasses, introduced into the recy-cling pool, would soon become diluted to the extent that they were difficult to recognize. Thusan appreciation of the scale and effects of recycling is key to understanding manufacturinglocations and glass compositional groups.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council in the form of a Ph.D.grant to CMJ (SERC 88803864), and supervised by Dr S. E. Warren and Professor J. R. Hunterof the Department of Archaeological Science, University of Bradford, UK. Help with chemicalanalysis was kindly provided by Drs J. N. Walsh and S. James of the then NERC ICP–AESfacility at Royal Holloway University of London, UK. York Archaeological Trust, especially DrA. Mainman, are thanked for the loan of the study material. Dr H. E. M. Cool is acknowledgedand thanked for the typological assessment. Apologies to Blue Mink for mangling their song title.



App

endi

x1

The

com

posi

tion

ofsa

mpl

esof

Rom

angl

ass

from

Cop

perg

ate,

York

,ana

lyse

dus

ing

indu

ctiv

ely

coup

led

plas

ma

spec

trom

etry

(maj

oran

dm

inor

elem

ents

asw

t%ox

ides

,tra

ceel

emen

tsas

ppm

).Sa

mpl

esar

epl

aced

into

com

posi

tion

algr

oups

(Sb,

anti

mon

yco

lour

less

;lo

w-M

n,lo

w-m

anga

nese

;hi

gh-M

n,hi

gh-m

anga

nese

;Sb

–Mn,

mix

edm

anga

nese

and

anti

mon

y;H

IMT,

high

iron

,man

gane

sean

dti

tani

um;

Pla

nt,p

lant

ash;

colo

ur—

C,c

olou

rles

s;B

G,b

lue–

gree

n;L

G,l

ight

gree

n;Y

G,y

ello

wgr

een;

B,l

ight

blue

).Sa

mpl

esin

ital

ics

are

thos

eth

atm

aydi

ffer

slig

htly

inso

me

resp

ect

from

the

defin

edco

mpo

siti

on.b

.d.,

Bel

owde

tect

ion

Cat

.no.

For

mE

stim

ated

date

(cen

turi

esA

D)

Ass

igne

dgr

oup

Visu

alco

lour

Oxi

des

(wt%

)Tr

ace

elem

ents

(ppm

)

Al 2

O3

Fe 2

O3

MgO

CaO

Na 2

OK

2OTi

O2

P2O

5M

nOP

bOSb

2O5

Ba

Cu

Li

Ni

SrV

YZ

nL

aC

e

1344

3U

ndia

gnos

ticSb

C1.

670.

340.

465.

6719

.68

0.52

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.89

132

1113

1239

49

716

1220

1117

2Is

ings

21L

ate

1st

SbC

2.04

0.25

0.30

5.60

19.6

60.

630.

040.

020.

010.

390.

8816

510

1215

533

77

1611

2111

420

Bod

ySb

C2.

080.

490.

506.

7219

.62

0.56

0.08

0.04

0.04

0.13

0.88

144

1315

1557

911

719

1223

1086

4U

ndia

gnos

ticSb

C1.

620.

250.

435.

1319

.37

0.42

0.06

0.03

0.02

b.d.

0.74

129

58

1035

88

615

1017

1246

1B

ody

SbC

2.06

0.35

0.38

5.70

19.8

60.

590.

050.

030.

020.

270.

7415

816

1215

416

87

1711

2314

346B

Bod

ySb

C1.

870.

280.

324.

4918

.60

0.44

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.12

0.72

143

157

1128

65

616

1014

8516

Und

iagn

ostic

?Sb

C1.

990.

470.

536.

0319

.70

0.63

0.09

0.06

0.07

0.03

0.72

154

147

1340

910

725

1118

1349

3Is

ings

85b

Lat

e2n

d–ea

rly

3rd

SbC

2.04

0.42

0.43

5.58

20.2

40.

640.

070.

040.

060.

020.

6916

315

1414

358

117

2811

2213

955

Isin

gs85

bL

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

C1.

840.

260.

345.

0619

.15

0.54

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.65

145

812

1335

98

715

1119

8442

Isin

gs85

Lat

e2n

d–ea

rly

3rd

SbC

1.86

0.37

0.45

5.81

18.0

40.

460.

070.

040.

020.

010.

6514

322

712

403

107

3611

1514

331

Und

iagn

ostic

SbC

1.97

0.28

0.37

5.52

19.6

10.

640.

050.

030.

010.

020.

6414

513

912

386

77

1911

1713

992

Bow

lSb

C1.

870.

370.

495.

7718

.48

0.59

0.08

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.64

149

58

1040

09

618

1016

1228

7B

ody

SbC

1.91

0.39

0.51

6.67

19.6

10.

540.

070.

030.

010.

020.

6113

116

1419

486

118

2512

2112

582

Und

iagn

ostic

SbC

1.83

0.35

0.53

5.80

19.6

20.

450.

060.

030.

010.

020.

6113

313

1214

415

117

2012

2113

657

Flas

k/ju

gL

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

C1.

950.

340.

415.

5020

.51

0.48

0.07

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.61

158

1012

1339

69

715

1117

1371

6C

ylin

dric

albo

ttle

SbC

2.00

0.41

0.47

6.01

19.2

20.

510.

080.

040.

030.

010.

6114

614

68

438

97

2411

1686

25B

ody

?4th

SbC

1.86

0.35

0.39

5.31

18.7

20.

490.

070.

030.

080.

020.

6115

617

1415

352

117

2312

2213

634

Isin

gs85

bL

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

C1.

790.

330.

395.

3219

.87

0.47

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.57

137

1212

1236

49

722

1120

1386

4B

ody

SbC

1.92

0.27

0.32

5.59

18.4

40.

460.

050.

030.

020.

240.

5714

68

610

401

66

1610

1514

321A

Bod

ySb

C1.

670.

360.

466.

0818

.62

0.47

0.07

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.53

127

1511

1343

611

722

1120

1377

8B

ody

SbC

1.76

0.32

0.40

5.45

19.3

70.

440.

070.

030.

020.

010.

5313

611

911

370

86

2411

1511

894

Und

iagn

ostic

?Sb

C2.

020.

420.

555.

9719

.49

0.42

0.08

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.41

144

1113

1340

612

719

1222

1387

1Is

ings

85L

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

C1.

870.

300.

486.

9020

.62

0.52

0.07

0.05

0.09

0.01

0.41

151

199

840

610

728

1017

9501

Face

tted

beak

er2n

d–3r

dSb

C1.

830.

310.

375.

5119

.21

0.47

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.40

141

146

1034

57

619

1015

1383

5B

ody

SbC

1.84

0.22

0.33

5.13

18.5

50.

480.

050.

030.

02b.

d.0.

4014

28

59

354

67

1611

1814

264B

Bod

ySb

C2.

040.

440.

585.

7120

.38

0.39

0.09

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.50

158

1511

1241

911

822

1117

1226

6B

ody

SbC

2.00

0.46

0.51

5.60

19.3

00.

530.

070.

040.

060.

060.

5015

158

1414

382

117

2511

1812

103

Cyl

ndri

cal

bottl

eL

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

C2.

130.

350.

526.

5419

.72

0.62

0.07

0.04

0.03

b.d.

0.49

140

188

850

48

730

1119

1198

4U

ndia

gnos

ticSb

C2.

030.

410.

555.

9719

.26

0.45

0.08

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.46

145

1111

1540

912

718

1120

1199

3U

ndia

gnos

ticSb

C2.

000.

500.

666.

3820

.03

0.45

0.10

0.04

0.01

0.02

0.45

138

1312

1556

713

719

1221

1220

1B

ody

SbC

2.05

0.44

0.65

5.91

19.2

10.

400.

080.

030.

010.

020.

4515

612

1315

424

117

1612

2014

130B

Bod

ySb

C2.

100.

440.

635.

9318

.81

0.44

0.07

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.45

157

1413

1242

911

722

1222

1245

7B

ody

4th

SbC

1.76

0.23

0.37

5.60

18.6

90.

420.

060.

030.

02b.

d.0.

4513

712

68

384

77

1810

1614

308A

Bod

ySb

C1.

790.

240.

365.

1619

.06

0.36

0.06

0.03

0.02

b.d.

0.35

135

86

832

66

718

1015

1335

1B

ody

SbC

1.90

0.26

0.41

5.32

19.8

30.

510.

050.

030.

02b.

d.0.

2913

76

69

359

67

1910

16



1432

0B

ody

SbC

2.12

0.34

0.50

5.53

18.6

00.

370.

080.

030.

02b.

d.0.

3114

67

711

358

97

1911

1814

309B

Bod

ySb

LG

/C2.

190.

350.

665.

9118

.92

0.43

0.08

0.03

0.02

b.d.

0.31

152

118

1043

39

716

1116

8674

Bod

ySb

C1.

970.

330.

474.

9917

.99

0.49

0.07

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.25

150

66

832

48

615

1015

1410

8B

ody

SbC

1.97

0.29

0.45

6.73

19.6

20.

520.

070.

040.

02b.

d.0.

0513

813

69

469

98

2110

1714

310A

Bod

ySb

C2.

010.

340.

455.

4319

.94

0.55

0.06

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.52

158

1410

937

08

721

1117

1431

1BU

ndia

gnos

ticSb

C1.

980.

440.

555.

9519

.84

0.52

0.08

0.05

0.09

0.08

0.46

156

5818

1139

810

726

1115

1432

1cB

ody

Sb/h

igh-

Ca

YG

2.49

0.72

0.77

6.54

20.2

00.

740.

120.

080.

050.

040.

6616

378

1113

509

127

3112

1710

783

Cyl

indr

ical

bott

leL

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

/hig

h-C

aL

G2.

410.

800.

877.

5419

.23

0.69

0.13

0.07

0.08

0.03

0.73

157

2117

1654

016

929

1223

1433

9cB

ody

Sb/h

igh-

Ca

LG

2.46

0.54

0.68

7.09

20.4

80.

690.

090.

040.

010.

020.

5715

720

1416

559

139

3112

2112

369

Squa

rebo

ttle

?Mid

-1st

–end

2nd

Low

-Mn

B2.

520.

320.

487.

3716

.66

0.46

0.08

0.14

0.79

b.d.

0.01

310

77

1241

727

815

1116

1068

3C

ast

win

dow

Low

-Mn

BG

2.61

0.37

0.55

7.02

18.3

40.

630.

070.

130.

780.

020.

0127

419

1423

470

239

1912

2112

320

Bod

yfr

agL

ow-M

nG

2.54

0.32

0.48

7.26

16.0

30.

470.

070.

140.

71b.

d.0.

0129

58

649

405

269

1811

1914

321B

Bod

yfr

agL

ow-M

nG

2.99

0.40

0.57

8.24

18.0

00.

770.

060.

150.

670.

020.

0127

523

1123

537

1910

2111

2012

220

Squa

rebo

ttle

?Mid

-1st

–end

2nd

Low

-Mn

B2.

420.

300.

548.

1816

.80

0.60

0.07

0.13

0.66

b.d.

0.01

266

316

1849

716

828

1118

1410

3R

ibbe

dbo

dyL

ate

1st–

earl

y2n

dL

ow-M

nB

G2.

500.

260.

507.

8118

.97

0.58

0.07

0.11

0.63

b.d.

0.01

238

87

1647

017

923

1119

1351

9B

ody

Low

-Mn

B2.

620.

310.

517.

2617

.70

0.74

0.08

0.15

0.48

b.d.

0.01

234

247

1642

216

827

1116

1260

1C

ylin

dric

albo

ttle

Low

-Mn

B2.

500.

290.

527.

8817

.02

0.56

0.07

0.12

0.44

b.d.

0.01

247

396

1445

217

816

1118

1253

7B

ottle

shou

lder

Low

-Mn

B2.

600.

280.

547.

9119

.02

0.66

0.07

0.12

0.42

b.d.

0.01

302

96

1144

422

916

1019

1350

2H

andl

eL

ow-M

nB

2.71

0.27

0.51

8.22

17.0

40.

600.

060.

130.

41b.

d.0.

0126

718

714

468

169

1711

1812

393

Bod

yL

ow-M

nB

2.80

0.31

0.50

7.39

17.1

40.

560.

070.

110.

39b.

d.0.

0124

313

614

438

149

1911

1912

733

Bot

tleL

ow-M

nB

G2.

690.

360.

467.

1319

.87

0.64

0.08

0.12

0.39

0.02

0.01

242

1810

1642

314

915

1117

1286

8Is

ings

12(H

ofhe

imcu

p)1s

tL

ow-M

nB

G2.

810.

360.

457.

1418

.43

0.73

0.08

0.13

0.36

0.02

0.01

224

2612

1839

715

918

1122

1328

2Is

ings

55(j

ug)

Mid

-1st

–ear

ly2n

dL

ow-M

nB

2.36

0.28

0.52

8.00

16.4

40.

560.

070.

120.

34b.

d.0.

0123

521

814

447

139

1811

2014

324

Bod

yL

ow-M

nB

2.64

0.31

0.53

7.65

17.9

30.

680.

070.

140.

30b.

d.0.

0123

313

614

452

139

1911

1886

36Is

ings

3(P

MB

)1s

tL

ow-M

nB

3.04

0.38

0.45

7.35

17.0

00.

770.

080.

120.

250.

010.

0122

119

612

384

119

1611

1813

604

Isin

gs3

(PM

B)

1st

Low

-Mn

B2.

790.

390.

657.

7416

.82

0.65

0.08

0.15

0.21

b.d.

0.01

250

377

1143

713

815

1116

1369

5B

ody

Low

-Mn

B2.

580.

280.

528.

0316

.35

0.68

0.07

0.15

0.16

b.d.

0.01

232

156

1241

912

915

1019

1014

8B

ody

1st–

2nd

Low

-Mn

YG

2.84

0.31

0.44

7.50

16.5

31.

710.

070.

130.

080.

020.

0122

58

1114

387

119

1511

2213

152

Bod

yL

ow-M

nY

G2.

830.

300.

447.

4517

.13

0.63

0.07

0.13

0.08

0.02

0.01

220

714

1738

311

913

1224

1389

0B

ody

Low

-Mn

YG

2.97

0.26

0.45

7.85

16.3

90.

630.

070.

140.

08b.

d.0.

0123

15

610

401

98

1311

1913

599

Isin

gs44

/5(b

owl)

Mid

-1st

–mid

-2nd

Low

-Mn

YG

2.94

0.24

0.45

7.86

16.1

10.

620.

070.

130.

07b.

d.0.

0122

76

610

395

98

1711

1913

688

Jug

and

hand

leL

ow-M

nY

G2.

280.

310.

488.

0618

.03

0.60

0.06

0.13

0.07

0.02

0.01

211

1012

1441

612

912

1120

9636

Isin

gs52

(jug

)L

ate

1st–

earl

y2n

dL

ow-M

nY

G2.

700.

250.

457.

9918

.57

0.53

0.06

0.10

0.03

b.d.

0.01

212

46

643

17

811

1116

9426

Bod

yL

ow-M

nG

2.65

0.32

0.43

7.02

17.6

20.

680.

060.

110.

020.

010.

0120

35

810

368

88

1511

1711

912

Bod

y4t

hL

ow-M

nY

G2.

530.

350.

487.

9118

.36

0.67

0.07

0.12

0.02

0.02

0.01

205

714

1440

911

917

1122

1137

7C

ast

win

dow

Hig

h-M

nB

G2.

940.

640.

618.

5217

.42

0.54

0.07

0.10

1.38

0.02

0.08

385

1710

2150

123

1019

1220

1353

5B

ottle

shou

lder

Hig

h-M

n(L

evan

tine

1?)

BG

2.85

0.57

0.67

8.77

15.8

30.

540.

090.

101.

340.

020.

0834

49

1224

541

1310

19

22

1406

9C

ast

win

dow

Hig

h-M

n(L

evan

tine

1?)

G2.

790.

400.

548.

6114

.85

0.68

0.08

0.15

1.33

b.d.

0.03

440

237

1948

838

918

1020

1123

6C

ast

win

dow

Hig

h-M

nB

G2.

880.

600.

588.

4017

.44

0.46

0.08

0.09

1.24

0.02

0.08

366

157

1948

621

920

1117



App

endi

x1

(Con

tinu

ed)

Cat

.no.

For

mE

stim

ated

date

(cen

turi

esA

D)

Ass

igne

dgr

oup

Visu

alco

lour

Oxi

des

(wt%

)Tr

ace

elem

ents

(ppm

)

Al 2

O3

Fe 2

O3

MgO

CaO

Na 2

OK

2OTi

O2

P2O

5M

nOP

bOSb

2O5

Ba

Cu

Li

Ni

SrV

YZ

nL

aC

e

1271

7Fl

ask/

jug

Hig

h-M

nL

G3.

030.

430.

558.

4916

.65

0.79

0.07

0.10

1.16

0.02

0.01

473

2712

1956

937

916

1119

1131

6C

up4t

hH

igh-

Mn

LG

3.28

0.46

0.68

9.00

18.3

90.

850.

080.

091.

130.

020.

0456

218

1318

522

2010

2011

2313

562

Isin

gs10

6be

aker

4th

Hig

h-M

nL

G3.

170.

480.

708.

7717

.38

0.69

0.08

0.09

1.07

0.02

0.01

581

2214

1853

220

1017

1323

1278

8B

ody

frag

men

tH

igh-

Mn

LG

/C2.

650.

440.

598.

1017

.78

0.74

0.07

0.08

1.06

0.02

0.08

581

2511

1646

121

918

1121

9791

Isin

gs10

6be

aker

4th

Hig

h-M

nG

3.19

0.41

0.59

9.04

18.1

70.

830.

080.

100.

920.

020.

0137

214

1217

525

1810

1711

1910

734

Jug

Lat

e1s

t–ea

rly

2nd

Hig

h-M

nY

G2.

800.

300.

517.

8817

.03

0.78

0.07

0.19

0.90

b.d.

0.01

282

97

1948

120

820

1118

1017

9Fa

cette

dbe

aker

End

3rd–

earl

y4t

hH

igh-

Mn

LG

2.87

0.43

0.62

8.29

17.1

60.

650.

080.

100.

860.

020.

0139

918

1419

454

199

1612

2454

95F

acet

ted

beak

erE

nd3r

d–ea

rly

4th

Hig

h-M

n(L

evan

tine

1?)

LG

2.87

0.43

0.62

8.48

15.7

20.

660.

080.

110.

840.

010.

0140

717

713

450

179

1911

19

1354

7M

elte

dbo

dyfr

agm

ent

Hig

h-M

nY

G2.

690.

440.

887.

8614

.76

0.63

0.09

0.13

1.66

b.d.

0.01

429

179

2356

662

925

1220

1328

8B

ody

Sb–M

nC

1.85

0.29

0.41

5.51

19.4

20.

490.

060.

040.

110.

010.

4115

217

89

355

97

2310

1715

522

Bod

ySb

–Mn

C1.

780.

270.

395.

1919

.62

0.47

0.05

0.04

0.10

0.01

0.49

149

168

833

47

626

1016

1431

1AU

ndia

gnos

ticSb

–Mn

C2.

050.

430.

576.

0119

.75

0.55

0.07

0.04

0.10

0.06

0.48

164

6125

1341

611

725

1221

1434

6AB

ody

Sb–M

nY

G2.

030.

500.

495.

8119

.17

0.81

0.08

0.06

0.14

0.06

0.56

172

9121

1538

214

742

1222

8207

Bea

ker

flask

Lat

e2n

d–ea

rly

3rd

Sb–M

nC

1.84

0.37

0.43

5.47

19.4

70.

510.

070.

040.

130.

020.

5816

219

1616

356

127

2512

2314

291A

Bod

ySb

–Mn

C1.

940.

440.

485.

8818

.44

0.63

0.07

0.05

0.14

0.06

0.53

169

105

2214

392

127

3212

2112

037

Whe

el-c

utbe

aker

2nd

Sb–M

nC

1.99

0.31

0.43

5.70

19.0

10.

550.

060.

050.

110.

010.

3916

217

910

377

97

2310

1614

308B

Bod

ySb

–Mn

Y2.

150.

290.

445.

7619

.88

1.01

0.06

0.05

0.14

0.02

0.41

172

2012

936

59

725

1017

1426

4CB

ody

Sb–M

nL

G2.

310.

480.

546.

4319

.68

0.68

0.07

0.06

0.34

0.12

0.64

228

221

3117

438

168

3312

2114

306B

Und

iagn

osti

cSb

–Mn

G2.

370.

680.

576.

0219

.33

0.92

0.10

0.10

0.14

0.05

0.69

179

4716

1640

316

734

1223

1225

2B

ody

4th

Sb–M

nC

2.10

0.36

0.53

6.14

19.2

50.

660.

080.

060.

200.

030.

4517

656

1310

403

137

3211

1897

07V

ertic

al-r

ibbe

dju

g2n

d–3r

dSb

–Mn

C1.

950.

420.

465.

8419

.64

0.62

0.08

0.06

0.24

0.02

0.53

185

219

1238

813

727

1116

1426

4DB

ody

Sb–M

nL

G2.

200.

550.

536.

2720

.42

0.82

0.09

0.07

0.21

0.03

0.49

201

4614

1341

912

756

1113

1395

2C

up3r

dSb

–Mn

LG

2.34

0.46

0.55

7.07

18.5

00.

750.

080.

131.

010.

020.

3229

924

1117

437

298

2511

1912

143

Cas

tw

indo

wSb

–Mn

B2.

380.

460.

577.

1216

.20

0.67

0.09

0.09

0.63

0.02

0.25

256

4459

1644

320

834

1119

1265

7Ja

rSb

–Mn

B2.

380.

510.

546.

3518

.59

0.71

0.07

0.09

0.25

0.02

0.24

197

6811

1438

811

834

1120

1409

7Ju

gha

ndle

Sb–M

nB

2.45

0.38

0.52

6.87

16.9

00.

690.

080.

130.

480.

040.

2422

756

815

412

167

2811

1912

212

Cas

tw

indo

wSb

–Mn

BG

2.46

0.73

0.60

6.91

17.8

80.

770.

100.

130.

590.

080.

2426

211

121

2143

122

935

1222

8785

Bod

ySb

–Mn

BG

2.53

0.53

0.57

7.32

17.1

50.

760.

090.

140.

620.

050.

2425

756

1016

452

259

2711

1912

253

Isin

gs85

Lat

e2n

d–m

id-3

rdSb

–Mn

B2.

690.

530.

637.

4817

.85

0.80

0.09

0.11

0.67

0.02

0.24

295

6314

1746

619

932

1120

1389

9C

ast

win

dow

Sb–M

nG

2.75

0.59

0.63

7.52

16.9

70.

770.

100.

120.

700.

080.

2329

318

712

1746

222

936

1119

1295

6Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eSb

–Mn

BG

2.46

0.48

0.55

6.97

18.5

40.

680.

080.

130.

480.

050.

2124

272

1318

444

208

2111

1981

09Fu

nnel

-mou

thja

rSb

–Mn

BG

2.61

0.83

0.68

6.76

17.2

61.

050.

110.

130.

490.

160.

2126

150

419

1843

020

872

1119

1198

1C

ast

win

dow

Sb–M

nB

G2.

620.

670.

607.

2617

.56

0.72

0.09

0.13

0.74

0.10

0.21

286

163

2021

447

249

3112

24



1404

0R

imof

bow

l2n

d–3r

dSb

–Mn

BG

2.80

0.71

0.67

8.15

19.1

80.

880.

100.

120.

830.

050.

2134

151

1821

516

2810

3112

2313

857

Hai

rpin

shan

kSb

–Mn

G2.

490.

720.

647.

0218

.40

1.00

0.10

0.13

0.48

0.09

0.20

249

257

2018

436

198

7012

1910

263

Blo

wn

win

dow

Sb–M

nB

G2.

150.

640.

625.

9419

.36

0.80

0.10

0.08

0.72

0.08

0.19

234

105

1920

404

238

4112

2212

998

Und

iagn

ostic

Sb–M

nB

G2.

560.

450.

496.

8518

.16

0.73

0.08

0.12

0.42

0.05

0.17

224

7414

1940

717

822

1222

7497

Isin

gs44

/45

Mid

-1st

Sb–M

nL

G2.

530.

490.

587.

1918

.14

0.93

0.09

0.16

0.55

0.04

0.16

253

116

817

445

179

2612

1813

827

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

G2.

400.

530.

656.

9618

.75

0.86

0.09

0.19

0.57

0.05

0.16

230

263

1321

429

198

2812

2113

591

Bod

ySb

–Mn

B2.

440.

370.

557.

3516

.85

0.68

0.08

0.13

0.42

0.01

0.13

238

659

1542

717

923

1119

8101

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

G2.

660.

610.

576.

7317

.61

0.95

0.09

0.17

0.44

0.05

0.13

242

433

714

386

168

3111

1983

35Is

ings

3(P

MB

)1s

tSb

–Mn

B2.

550.

540.

546.

8318

.31

0.93

0.09

0.15

0.45

0.04

0.13

238

236

1116

403

169

3012

1711

793

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

G2.

300.

440.

486.

5717

.63

0.74

0.08

0.13

0.43

0.02

0.11

215

172

1319

373

168

2112

2310

674

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

G2.

320.

750.

546.

1019

.23

0.74

0.10

0.09

0.23

0.05

0.45

197

9616

1738

516

836

1221

9357

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

G2.

310.

520.

596.

5719

.16

0.78

0.09

0.12

0.35

0.03

0.44

219

599

1241

916

825

1117

1078

1Is

ings

85L

ate

2nd–

earl

y3r

dSb

–Mn

C2.

090.

390.

446.

0419

.08

0.65

0.07

0.06

0.43

0.02

0.44

215

1515

1938

919

824

1223

1426

4aB

ody

Sb–M

nY

G2.

560.

650.

586.

8419

.81

0.91

0.09

0.09

0.43

0.12

0.44

245

271

1818

450

169

4112

1914

291C

Bod

ySb

–Mn

YG

2.26

0.61

0.56

6.08

17.8

30.

900.

090.

110.

490.

310.

4423

811

5323

1839

616

747

1117

1430

9AB

ody

Sb–M

nC

1.93

0.29

0.42

5.54

19.5

90.

550.

070.

050.

11b.

d.0.

4215

614

107

362

97

2411

1612

392

Bod

ySb

–Mn

C2.

070.

330.

465.

4319

.48

0.59

0.07

0.06

0.16

0.01

0.42

172

237

1135

511

728

1017

1262

0B

ottle

Sb–M

nB

2.45

0.70

0.55

6.31

18.4

70.

710.

100.

090.

240.

020.

4220

472

1112

390

158

3412

2010

323

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

G2.

490.

780.

536.

0318

.95

0.71

0.12

0.09

0.24

0.04

0.42

199

9219

1838

519

932

1323

1393

7Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eSb

–Mn

G2.

540.

450.

566.

3819

.71

0.84

0.10

0.10

0.36

0.03

0.42

221

6311

1540

416

828

1118

1132

5B

ody

Sb–M

nC

2.18

0.55

0.64

6.43

19.6

10.

790.

090.

070.

260.

030.

4021

462

2813

430

158

4012

1813

281

Tub

ular

rim

Sb–M

nG

W2.

410.

520.

556.

7118

.34

0.76

0.09

0.11

0.34

0.03

0.40

217

5112

1640

717

825

1118

1433

9aB

ody

Sb–M

nY

G2.

650.

700.

636.

9319

.58

1.04

0.10

0.11

0.46

0.18

0.40

251

739

2318

445

188

6212

1814

114

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nB

2.29

0.63

0.54

6.40

20.4

10.

660.

080.

100.

380.

020.

4621

853

915

394

147

3511

1514

291B

Bod

ySb

–Mn

LG

2.39

0.69

0.60

6.36

18.6

61.

560.

090.

070.

350.

080.

3925

591

4315

432

148

3412

1712

534

Bod

ySb

–Mn

B2.

640.

630.

706.

8217

.87

0.83

0.10

0.11

0.28

0.01

0.37

221

6615

1438

216

929

1223

1374

1B

low

nw

indo

w4t

h?Sb

–Mn

LG

2.23

0.59

0.57

6.22

18.6

70.

670.

090.

080.

310.

140.

3720

333

819

1740

817

736

1221

1431

0BB

ody

Sb–M

nB

2.28

0.56

0.60

6.19

19.9

70.

750.

090.

100.

160.

010.

3618

052

1211

387

137

3211

1913

805

Jug/

flask

Sb–M

nB

G2.

830.

880.

626.

9119

.25

1.09

0.14

0.14

0.34

0.05

0.36

262

9420

1841

620

1035

1423

1434

6DU

ndia

gnos

ticSb

–Mn

YG

2.67

0.62

0.62

6.73

19.7

11.

200.

100.

110.

400.

130.

3623

330

519

1743

716

836

1114

1172

4Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eSb

–Mn

BG

2.40

0.82

0.59

6.81

19.1

50.

760.

090.

110.

450.

060.

3623

557

1720

421

209

3012

2213

995

Isin

gs85

Lat

e2n

d–m

id-3

rdSb

–Mn

C2.

010.

300.

435.

5918

.86

0.62

0.06

0.06

0.21

0.01

0.35

174

2411

935

810

723

1015

1188

9C

ast

win

dow

Sb–M

nB

G2.

810.

690.

657.

5618

.35

0.84

0.10

0.12

0.77

0.10

0.35

312

170

1819

486

249

3312

19



App

endi

x1

(Con

tinu

ed)

Cat

.no.

For

mE

stim

ated

date

(cen

turi

esA

D)

Ass

igne

dgr

oup

Visu

alco

lour

Oxi

des

(wt%

)Tr

ace

elem

ents

(ppm

)

Al 2

O3

Fe 2

O3

MgO

CaO

Na 2

OK

2OTi

O2

P2O

5M

nOP

bOSb

2O5

Ba

Cu

Li

Ni

SrV

YZ

nL

aC

e

1213

5C

ast

win

dow

Sb–M

nB

2.67

0.66

0.62

7.09

17.2

80.

980.

120.

140.

380.

080.

3325

324

917

1740

819

940

1221

1334

1B

ottle

,han

dle

reed

edSb

–Mn

B2.

530.

710.

616.

9719

.58

0.82

0.09

0.13

0.40

0.05

0.33

244

9915

1542

517

835

1117

1398

4B

ottle

shou

lder

Sb–M

nB

G2.

340.

500.

606.

6717

.42

0.83

0.08

0.16

0.41

0.05

0.33

208

6013

1939

817

824

1223

8066

Und

iagn

ostic

Sb–M

nB

G2.

350.

880.

576.

9317

.59

1.03

0.09

0.13

0.52

0.05

0.33

240

8636

1641

521

836

1221

1264

1Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eSb

–Mn

B2.

190.

970.

496.

0918

.27

0.65

0.07

0.08

0.26

0.01

0.32

189

4010

1436

712

732

1119

1076

3Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eSb

–Mn

BG

2.47

0.69

0.60

6.86

18.4

80.

830.

100.

130.

530.

050.

3225

270

2121

430

238

2912

2314

315

Bod

ySb

–Mn

G2.

830.

680.

626.

7518

.01

0.97

0.13

0.14

0.33

0.03

0.31

259

8716

1540

518

932

1322

1386

9Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eSb

–Mn

B2.

580.

570.

597.

0818

.24

0.82

0.10

0.14

0.40

0.03

0.31

244

119

1513

408

188

4011

1913

907

Bod

ySb

–Mn

LG

2.53

0.67

0.63

6.65

18.0

20.

910.

090.

120.

430.

120.

3128

717

420

1742

318

865

1224

8417

Bod

ySb

–Mn

BG

2.44

0.70

0.63

6.86

18.3

71.

020.

090.

130.

490.

090.

3124

418

718

1543

219

851

1119

1208

6H

andl

eju

gSb

–Mn

BG

2.39

0.43

0.59

7.23

20.0

10.

680.

080.

090.

550.

010.

3026

839

1015

472

169

3111

1912

879

Bod

ySb

–Mn

BG

2.50

0.70

0.62

7.20

18.4

80.

840.

100.

130.

540.

080.

2926

970

1215

440

219

3311

1898

66B

ottle

,ree

ded

hand

leSb

–Mn

BG

2.81

0.67

0.63

7.59

19.1

01.

030.

110.

140.

560.

050.

2928

213

329

1945

223

935

1324

8391

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nG

2.54

0.77

0.67

6.87

18.4

81.

190.

110.

130.

530.

090.

2825

821

528

1644

120

910

812

1810

249

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nL

G/B

G2.

650.

600.

707.

0018

.67

1.04

0.10

0.11

0.85

0.03

0.11

288

9119

2043

020

938

1221

1021

9C

ast

win

dow

Sb–M

nB

G2.

540.

760.

666.

7119

.17

1.09

0.10

0.13

0.55

0.10

0.25

261

216

3920

443

218

8613

2314

041

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

Sb–M

nG

2.60

0.55

0.75

7.17

17.1

80.

930.

100.

170.

600.

020.

2527

267

1215

464

238

2911

2013

259

Mel

ted

bottl

eSb

–Mn

BG

2.67

0.91

0.86

6.94

18.0

21.

000.

120.

100.

300.

040.

5321

975

2620

362

2110

3413

2614

130A

Bod

ySb

–Mn

YG

2.53

0.98

0.62

6.72

18.6

30.

910.

100.

130.

430.

450.

5324

517

1819

1940

018

870

1118

9718

Bod

ySb

–Mn

LG

/C2.

120.

510.

526.

0519

.37

0.67

0.08

0.07

0.22

0.30

0.54

183

350

2716

401

157

6011

2113

755

Bot

tleSb

–Mn

BG

2.23

0.55

0.59

6.05

18.8

30.

770.

100.

110.

270.

050.

5419

769

914

382

167

3112

1912

092

Bot

tle/ju

gSb

–Mn

LG

/BG

2.61

0.69

0.67

6.57

20.1

41.

070.

130.

150.

530.

130.

5823

915

414

2446

022

936

1323

1413

0CB

ody

Sb–M

nL

G2.

460.

510.

616.

1820

.23

0.61

0.09

0.06

0.11

0.04

0.41

181

6322

1447

112

737

1215

9904

Jug,

tubu

lar,

push

edin

base

ring

HIM

T2(

W)

LG

2.41

0.66

0.70

6.60

19.7

01.

180.

110.

080.

830.

030.

0127

883

2020

456

218

3512

21

1392

5B

ody

HIM

T2(

W)

B4.

110.

320.

424.

8618

.39

1.03

0.08

0.15

0.84

b.d.

0.01

292

258

2134

819

923

1118

9573

Bod

y4t

hH

IMT

2(W

)L

G2.

430.

830.

796.

4020

.00

1.20

0.14

0.10

0.99

0.03

0.08

467

137

2520

462

258

5313

2313

564

Bod

y4t

hH

IMT

2(W

)L

G2.

090.

670.

866.

7619

.88

0.51

0.13

0.04

1.03

0.02

0.03

301

1614

1956

222

818

1223

1031

5B

ody

HIM

T2(

W)

LG

/C2.

230.

710.

745.

9519

.76

0.98

0.12

0.07

1.00

0.03

0.08

318

8524

2143

022

844

1222

1262

8Is

ings

96/1

06(c

up/b

eake

r)4t

hH

IMT

2(W

)L

G/C

2.27

0.73

0.77

5.53

19.9

90.

850.

130.

070.

920.

040.

1623

184

2218

394

248

3812

22



1197

2Is

ings

96/1

06(c

up/b

eake

r)4t

hH

IMT

2(W

)L

G2.

150.

670.

725.

9019

.63

0.69

0.11

0.07

0.92

0.03

0.08

249

9118

2041

822

830

1224

8188

Bod

yH

IMT

2(W

)L

G2.

420.

710.

786.

3019

.43

0.90

0.12

0.09

0.86

0.04

0.13

267

135

3220

434

258

5713

2394

66Ju

gH

IMT

2(W

)G

2.45

0.64

0.71

6.63

19.6

11.

260.

110.

090.

770.

030.

1227

482

1316

450

208

3712

1795

33B

ody

4th

HIM

T2(

W)

G2.

200.

650.

736.

1219

.84

0.75

0.11

0.07

0.94

0.04

0.11

299

8421

1844

922

832

1222

1287

2B

ottle

hand

le,r

ibbe

dH

IMT

2(W

)L

G2.

500.

550.

716.

7519

.68

1.11

0.11

0.09

0.79

0.01

0.11

276

8416

1544

920

841

1120

1050

6Pr

ism

atic

bottl

eH

IMT

2(W

)B

G2.

250.

680.

736.

3720

.27

0.73

0.11

0.08

0.92

0.03

0.09

271

102

1316

443

207

3012

1612

866

Pris

mat

icbo

ttle

HIM

T2(

W)

G2.

080.

520.

645.

3217

.20

0.69

0.10

0.08

0.65

0.02

0.16

218

105

2213

376

207

4511

1814

338

Und

iagn

ostic

HIM

T2(

W)

G2.

280.

650.

686.

1920

.46

0.83

0.11

0.09

0.75

0.05

0.16

245

8313

1643

122

843

1218

1377

0B

ody

4th

HIM

T2(

W)

LG

/C2.

160.

690.

775.

6418

.85

0.75

0.12

0.07

0.87

0.03

0.16

239

124

1820

418

247

3512

2385

26B

ody

HIM

T2(

W)

LG

2.19

0.66

0.70

6.08

19.1

70.

770.

100.

080.

790.

050.

1523

710

721

2040

523

838

1224

1302

5B

ottle

body

HIM

T2(

W)

BG

2.16

0.33

0.42

6.38

18.0

20.

640.

070.

130.

860.

020.

0124

311

1422

424

208

2012

2212

096

Bod

yH

IMT

2(W

)C

2.25

0.75

0.81

7.66

20.0

80.

590.

130.

050.

930.

010.

1122

911

1319

675

288

1912

2214

144

Bod

yH

IMT

2(W

)B

2.57

0.62

0.88

6.12

18.8

31.

100.

130.

280.

810.

040.

1725

921

99

2243

624

939

1219

1376

1B

ody

HIM

T1(

S)Y

G2.

621.

171.

276.

4819

.26

0.56

0.23

0.06

1.80

0.03

0.03

342

5116

2958

835

1031

1325

1328

7Pr

ism

atic

bottl

ePL

AN

TB

2.31

0.70

1.29

8.89

18.7

11.

510.

120.

350.

12b.

d.0.

2319

247

812

703

137

3011

1812

021

Cas

tw

indo

wPL

AN

TB

2.25

0.79

1.41

7.25

16.9

21.

710.

160.

450.

120.

010.

1318

934

914

580

167

3411

2114

306a

Bod

yO

UT

G3.

010.

800.

858.

6518

.79

1.20

0.16

0.10

0.69

0.02

0.01

275

5018

2353

223

1130

1223

1020

3C

ast

win

dow

OU

TL

G2.

460.

610.

777.

5218

.30

0.74

0.09

0.21

1.71

0.02

0.12

404

3414

2450

950

820

1322

9381

Isin

gs67

Lat

e1s

t–ea

rly

2nd

OU

TL

G1.

860.

270.

335.

6118

.32

0.51

0.06

0.08

0.13

0.01

0.01

174

126

830

38

615

1015

1315

3C

ylin

dric

albo

ttle

OU

TB

2.11

0.30

0.42

5.46

17.7

10.

570.

070.

120.

47b.

d.0.

0120

212

816

337

157

2511

1712

302

Cyl

indr

ical

bott

leM

id-1

st–e

nd2n

dO

UT

B2.

620.

410.

527.

2118

.37

0.82

0.08

0.16

0.44

0.02

0.09

239

167

715

411

148

2511

16

1433

9BB

ody

OU

TL

G2.

500.

370.

487.

2319

.64

0.98

0.06

0.19

0.46

0.02

0.08

238

2310

1839

714

825

1117

1387

2Is

ings

3(P

MB

)1s

tO

UT

B2.

580.

390.

527.

1518

.37

0.78

0.09

0.15

0.40

0.01

0.08

237

177

814

407

138

2411

1714

072

Pri

smat

icbo

ttle

OU

TB

2.36

0.35

0.50

7.30

15.2

40.

680.

080.

130.

320.

010.

0721

314

27

1238

313

721

1121



Appendix 2 Correspondence between compositional groups for first- to fourth-century glass from selected studies,and representative compositions as wt% oxides unless stated otherwise (Ba and Cu as ppm). (nm, not measured,

below detection or not quoted): *indicates mean affected by one or two very high or low values

Decolourizer Major elements Known as References Site/region Approx. date(mostly centuriesAD)

Antimony (Sb) (colourless)Antimony High soda, low lime,

low aluminaGroup 4 Foy et al. (2004) Egypt, France, Tunisia 1st to mid-3rd

Antimony only Paynter (2006) Binchester, Colchester,Lincoln

1st to 3rd

CL1 Silvestri et al. (2008) Iulia Felix 3rdGroup 1a Jackson (2005) York, Mancetter,

Leicester1st–4th (mostly

2nd–3rd)N2 (selection) Gallo et al. (2013) Adria, Italy 2ndColourless Jackson and Price (2012) South Shields 3rd–4thColourless 1 Foster and Jackson (2010) UK various 3rd–4th

Paynter and Jackson (in prep.) British sites 1st–3rd

Antimony low lime (Sb/low-Ca) (colourless)Antimony (high) High soda, very low lime,

alumina and bariumLot A Foy et al. (2004) Carthage and France Hellenistic

Low-barium Paynter (2006) Binchester, Colchester,Lincoln

Mid-1st–mid-2nd

Included in N2 Gallo et al. (2013) Adria, Italy 2ndFacet-cut (some) Baxter et al. (2005) Across UK 1st–2ndLLAC Paynter and Jackson (in prep.) British sites 1st–3rd

Low-manganese (low-Mn) (blue–green)Manganese (low) Low soda, high lime,

high aluminaGroup 3 Foy et al. (2000)

Gliozzo et al. (2013) Thamusida, Morocco 2nd–3rdADN1 Gallo et al. (2013) Adria, Italy 1st

Jackson (1994) Mancetter 2nd–3rdJackson (1992) Coppergate 1st–3rdJackson (1994) Leicester 2nd–3rd

High-manganese (high-Mn) (varying from colourless to blue–green)Manganese (high) Low soda, high lime,

high aluminaGroup 2b Jackson (1992) Coppergate 1st–4th, mainly

2nd–3rdCL2 Silvestri et al. (2008) Iulia Felix 3rdCL2 Ganio et al. (2012) Embiez Late 2nd–early 3rd

Jackson (1994) Mancetter 2nd–3rdLevantine 1a Foster and Jackson (2009) UK various 4th2b Meek (2013) UK 4th–7thPetra 2 Schibille et al. (2012) Petra Mainly 4th

Gliozzo et al. (2013) Thamusida, Morocco 2nd–3rdADN1 Gallo et al. (2013) Adria, Italy 1st

Manganese low lime (Mn/low-Ca) (colourless)Manganese High soda, lower alumina,

lime and barium2a Meek (2013) Unprovenanced 3rd–7th

2a Foster and Jackson (2010) UK 4thGroup 3.2 Foy et al. (2003) France 4th–5th

Mixed antimony and manganese (Sb–Mn) (varying from blue–green to colourless)Manganese and antimony Intermediate soda and lime,

sometimes elevated iron,alumina, potassium and copper

Group 2a Jackson (2005) Leicester 3rd

Cu blue–green Paynter (2006) Binchester, Lincoln,Colchester

Mid-1st–3rd

Group 2a Jackson (2005) York 2nd–3rdCL1/2 Silvestri et al. (2008) Iulia Felix 3rdColourless 3 Foster and Jackson (2010) UK various 4th

Jackson (1994) Mancetter 2nd–3rdN2 (part of) Gallo et al. (2013) Adria, Italy 3rdGroup 2a Jackson (2005) Coppergate 2nd–4th

Paynter and Jackson (in prep.) British sites 1st–3rd



n SiO2 Na2O CaO Al2O3 K2O MgO Fe2O3 TiO2 MnO Sb2O3 P2O5 PbO Ba (ppm) Cu (ppm) SO3 Cl

94 71 19.05 5.56 1.94 0.42 0.43 0.34 0.06 0.02 0.63 0.02 nm nm nm nm nm

167 nm 18.90 5.67 2.01 0.43 0.41 0.37 0.06 0.02 0.43 0.05 0.04 148 12 nm nm

60 70.15 19.80 4.80 2.00 0.4 0.4 0.40 0.07 bd 0.8 0.03 <0.01 118 18 0.3 1.453 nm 19.34 5.63 1.91 0.5 0.45 0.35 0.07 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.04 148 17 nm nm

3 69.2 18.84 5.44 1.87 0.46 0.51 0.40 0.08 0.09 0.53 0.04 <0.01 134 9 0.31 1.623 nm 18.93 5.62 1.79 0.42 0.51 0.39 0.07 0.03 0.46 0.02 bd 138 23 nm nm46 nm 18.99 5.74 1.90 0.39 0.49 0.40 0.06 0.04 0.35 0.02 0.01 148 23 nm nm70 nm 18.70 5.70 1.90 0.5 0.4 0.40 0.06 bd 0.9 0.04 0.06 131 13 nm nm

2 74.7 18.00 4.09 1.12 0.56 0.55 0.40 0.075 bd 2.97 bd 1.30 nm nm nm nm

9 nm 18.52 4.51 1.53 0.61 0.40 0.43 0.06 0.06 0.96 0.05 0.26 85 16 nm nm

1 70.25 17.13 4.22 1.48 0.75 0.44 0.51 0.10 0.16 1.14 0.04 0.11 <10 151 nm nm10 nm 17.77 3.96 1.30 0.58 0.43 0.51 0.09 0.05 2.20 0.06 0.44 87 33* nm nm

3 nm 18.36 4.09 1.39 0.55 0.34 0.37 0.04 0.02 2.51 0.04 0.35 74 18 nm nm

22 69.80 17.00 8.01 2.54 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.06 0.63 nm 0.23 nm nm nm nm nm

9 70.52 14.92 8.18 2.57 0.53 0.49 0.60 0.06 0.29 11 ppm 0.12 12 ppm nm 10 0.09 nm13 69.02 17.55 7.71 2.51 0.64 0.51 0.40 0.06 0.50 0.06 0.13 61 ppm nm 98 0.20 1.432 nm 16.70 7.70 2.48 0.64 0.52 0.40 0.07 0.39 0.02 0.14 0.01 236 28 nm nm27 nm 17.59 7.65 2.66 0.71 0.50 0.32 0.07 0.30 0.02 0.13 0.01 236 32 nm nm

5 nm 17.54 7.44 2.40 0.60 0.61 0.47 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.12 0.01 210 10 nm nm

16 nm 16.85 8.24 2.86 0.65 0.60 0.44 0.08 1.07 0.03 0.12 0.01 406 17 nm nm

12 70.29 15.20 7.80 2.60 0.5 0.6 0.20 0.07 1.40 bd 0.14 21 ppm 369 17 0.10 1.25 65.27 15.55 8.44 2.26 0.54 0.45 0.28 0.05 1.35 0.16 0.16 nm 433 nm nm nm2 nm 14.93 7.86 2.51 0.71 0.63 0.49 0.08 1.20 0.03 0.18 0.01 286 25 nm nm

16 nm 15.55 8.45 2.81 0.6 0.59 0.42 0.07 1.23 0.06 0.09 <0.01 383 20 nm nm3 70.1 15.67 8.70 3.02 0.67 0.65 0.44 0.06 1.17 nm nm nm bm nm nm nm

18 68.45 16.13 8.16 2.73 1.04 0.46 0.36 0.07 1.08 0.02 0.15 <0.01 308 59 0.17 0.914 71.94 14.16 7.60 2.31 0.45 0.51 0.37 0.06 1.39 110 0.14 12 ppm nm 8 0.05 nm

2 68.54 18.04 7.63 2.50 0.77 0.64 0.38 0.05 1.05 nm 0.10 10 ppm 283 23 0.31 1.2

3 67.42 18.81 6.41 2.36 0.53 0.73 0.63 0.09 0.97 nm nm nm nm nm nm 1.3

5 nm 18.46 5.77 1.81 0.29 0.67 0.48 0.09 1.14 0.06 0.03 bd 199 14 nm nm17 68.07 18.79 7.05 1.92 0.44 0.65 0.70 0.09 0.89 18 0.08 179 ppm 243 25 nm nm

70 nm 18.50 6.36 2.33 0.70 0.54 0.67 0.10 0.26 0.40 0.11 0.04 201 82 nm nm

18 nm 19.44 5.68 2.21 0.54 0.48 0.49 0.09 0.26 0.51 0.08 0.04 179 22 nm nm

11 nm 19.25 6.10 2.28 0.71 0.56 0.54 0.10 0.34 0.46 0.10 0.07 207 116 nm nm13 69.13 19.02 5.64 2.14 0.54 0.66 0.64 0.12 0.19 0.79 0.07 83 ppm 144 24 0.28 1.369 nm 19.48 6.12 2.08 0.53 0.59 0.55 0.09 0.35 0.04 0.05 0.07 219 121 nm nm64 nm 18.08 6.63 2.41 0.73 0.54 0.52 0.09 0.43 0.28 0.13 0.04 223 76 nm nm

1 68.28 18.49 6.38 2.16 0.55 0.53 0.46 0.08 0.54 0.41 0.09 0.01 195 155 nm nm87 nm 18.70 6.57 2.39 0.81 0.57 0.58 0.09 0.40 0.35 0.10 0.06 228 151 nm nm

6 nm 19.21 5.51 2.14 0.60 0.46 0.51 0.10 0.27 0.90 0.08 0.05 171 60 nm nm



REFERENCES

Arletti, R., Vezzalini, G., Biaggio Simona, S., and Maselli Scotti, F., 2008, Archaeometrical studies of Roman Imperialage glass from Canton Ticino, Archaeometry, 50, 606–26.

Barag, D., 1987, Recent important epigraphic discoveries related to the history of glassmaking in the Roman period, inAnnales du 10e Congrès de l’Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre: Madrid–Segovie, 23–28 septembre1985, 109–16, AIHV, Amsterdam.

Baxter, M. J., Cool, H. E. M., and Jackson, C. M., 2005, Further studies in the compositional variability of colourlessRomano-British vessel glass, Archaeometry, 47, 47–68.

Bingham, P. A., and Jackson, C. M., 2008, Roman blue–green bottle glass: chemical–optical analysis and high tempera-ture viscosity modelling, Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 302–9.

Brems, D., and Degryse, P., 2014, Trace element analyses in provenancing Roman glass-making, Archaeometry, 56,Supplement S1, 116–36; DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12063

Brill, R. H., 1988, Scientific investigations of the Jalame glass and related finds, in Excavations at Jalame: site of a glassfactory in late Roman Palestine (ed. G. D. Weinberg), 257–94, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, NY.

Eichholz, D. E., 1962, Pliny, Natural history, vol. X, books XXXVI and XXXVII, 153, Heinemann, London.Foster, H., and Jackson, C. M., 2009, The composition of ‘naturally coloured’ late Roman vessel glass from Britain and

the implications for models of glass production and supply, Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 189–204.Foster, H., and Jackson, C. M., 2010, The composition of late Romano-British colourless vessel glass: glass production

and consumption, Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 3068–80.Foy, D., Thirion-Merle, V., and Vichy, M., 2004, Contribution à l’étude des verres antiques décolorés à l’antimoine,

Revue d’Archéométrie, 28, 169–77.Foy, D., Vichy, M., and Picon, M., 2000, L’ingots de verre en Méditerranée occidentale (IIIe siècle av. J.-C. – VIIe siècle

ap. J.-C.), in Annales du 14e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire de Verre: Italia/Venezia-Milano,51–7, AIHV, Amsterdam.

Foy, D., Picon, M., Vichy, M., and Thirion-Merle, V., 2003, Caractérisation des verres de la fin de l’Antiquité enMéditerranée occidentale: l’émergence de nouveaux courants commerciaux, in Echanges et commerce du verre dansle monde antique, Actes du colloque international de l’AFAV, Aix-en-Provence et Marseille 2001 (eds. D. Foy andM.-D. Nenna), 41–86, Monographies Instrumentum 24, Éditions Monique Mergoil, Montagnac.

Appendix 2 (Continued)

Decolourizer Major elements Known as References Site/region Approx. date(mostly centuriesAD)

Levantine 1 (blue–green)None Low soda, high alumina and lime Jackson (1994) Mancetter 3rd–4th

Levantine 1b Foster and Jackson (2009) Various UK 4thLevantine Freestone et al. (2000) Dor, Appollonia 6th–7th

HIMT (olive green)Manganese High soda, low lime,

high titanium and ironHIMT2 Foster and Jackson (2009) UK 4th

HIMT1 Foster and Jackson (2009) UK 4thGroup 1 Foy et al. (2003) France, Tunisia and Egypt 5thHIMT London Freestone et al. (2005) London 4thHIMT Carthage Freestone et al. (2005) Carthage 4thHIMT1 Jackson and Price (2012) South Shields 4thHIMT2 Jackson and Price (2012) South Shields 4th

Plant ash (blue–green)Manganese High potassium, high magnesium Plant ash glass Jackson et al. (2009) Colchester 1st

Gallo et al. (2013) Adria, Italy 1stHenderson (1996) Fishbourne 1stThirion-Merle (2005) GdeFoss/Ruscino 1stJackson and Cottam (forthcoming) Barzan, France 1stJackson and Cottam (forthcoming) Ribnica, Slovenia 1st



Freestone, I. C., 1994, Appendix: chemical analysis of ‘raw’ glass fragments, in Excavations at Carthage, vol. II, 1. TheCircular Harbour, north side. The site and finds other than pottery (ed. H. R. Hurst), 290, British AcademyMonographs in Archaeology, no. 4, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Freestone, I. C., Gorin-Rosen, Y., and Hughes, M. J., 2000, Primary glass from Israel and the production of glass in thelate antiquity and the early Islamic period, in La route du verre: ateliers primaires et secondaires du second millénaireav. J.-C. au Moyen Âge (ed. M.-D. Nenna), 65–84, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen—Jean Pouilloux,no. 33, Lyon.

Freestone, I. C., Ponting, M., and Hughes, M. J., 2002, Origins of Byzantine glass from Maroni Petrera, Cyprus,Archaeometry, 44, 257–72.

Freestone, I. C., Wolf, S., and Thirlwall, M., 2005, The production of HIMT glass: elemental and isotopic evidence, inAnnales du 16e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, London, 7–13 September 2003,AIHV, Nottingham.

Gallo, F., Silvestri, A., and Molin, G., 2013, Glass from the archaeological museum of Adria (north-east Italy): newinsights into early Roman production technologies, Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2589–605.

Ganio, M., Boyen, S., Brems, D., Scott, R., Foy, D., Latruwe, K., Molin, G., Silvestri, A., Vanhaecke, F., and Degryse,P., 2012, Trade routes across the Mediterranean: a Sr/Nd isotopic investigation on Roman colourless glass, GlassTechnology: European Journal of Glass Science and Technology Part A, 53(5), 217–24.

Gliozzo, E., Barbone, A. S., and D’Acapito, F., 2013, Waste glass, vessels and window-panes from Thamusida(Morocco): grouping natron-based blue–green and colourless Roman glasses, Archaeometry, 55, 609–39.

Hall, R., 1984, The Viking dig, Bodley Head, London.Henderson, J., 1996, Scientific analysis of selected Fishbourne vessel glass and its archaeological interpretation, in

Chichester excavations, 189–92, Chichester Civic Society Excavations Committee, Chichester.Jackson, C. M., 1992, Compositional analysis of Roman and early post-Roman glass and glassworking waste from

selected British sites, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Bradford.Jackson, C. M., 1994, Appendix 1: compositional data from the Romano-British glassmelting debris from Mancetter and

Leicester, in Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology (M. J. Baxter), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Jackson, C. M., 2005, Making colourless glass in the Roman period, Archaeometry, 47, 763–80.Jackson, C. M., and Cottam, S., in preparation, Compositional and typological observations concerning the production of

emerald green glass vessels in the 1st century A.D.

n SiO2 Na2O CaO Al2O3 K2O MgO Fe2O3 TiO2 MnO Sb2O3 P2O5 PbO Ba (ppm) Cu (ppm) SO3 Cl

5 nm 16.74 8.72 2.46 0.67 0.56 0.39 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.01 206 5 nm nm8 nm 14.56 8.55 2.93 0.72 0.45 0.33 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.02 254 15 nm nm

23 69.01 15.98 9.06 2.99 0.83 0.63 0.42 0.12 nm nm 0.14 nm 223 nm 0.3 0.9

221 nm 19.65 6.00 2.25 0.58 0.76 0.72 0.12 0.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 290 105 nm nm

123 nm 19.11 6.08 2.49 0.5 0.98 1.36 0.33 1.71 0.05 0.05 0.01 600 91 nm nm43 64.5 19.1 6.22 2.88 0.41 1.23 2.28 0.49 2.02 7 ppm 0.11 63 ppm 654 79 nm nm14 66.38 18.54 5.99 2.47 0.57 0.92 1.28 0.33 1.9 nm nm nm nm nm nm nm

1 64.77 18.74 5.24 3.18 0.44 1.29 2.30 0.68 2.66 nm nm nm nm nm nm nm9 nm 18.79 5.74 2.26 0.49 0.93 1.14 0.23 1.39 0.01 0.05 0.01 249 71 nm nm8 nm 18.1 5.78 2.05 0.64 0.74 0.70 0.12 0.83 0.08 0.06 0.02 263 99 nm nm

16 63.06 16.54 6.96 2.14 1.73 1.84 1.44 0.19 0.79 0.34 0.77 0.49 600 16 720 0.24 0.96 63.44 17.94 6.73 2.26 1.46 1.96 1.26 0.18 0.73 0.05 0.83 0.04 312 13 084 0.27 1.35 64.04 15.54 6.88 2.04 1.88 2.24 1.09 0.10 0.88 nm 1.00 0.10 nm 18 000 0.34 1.05 64.66 17.26 6.75 2.32 1.64 1.76 1.55 0.20 1.07 518 ppm 1.06 0.13 420 15 091 nm nm

12 62.12 17.10 6.63 2.62 1.50 1.85 1.27 0.18 0.80 0.29 0.65 0.29 100 16 400 0.28 1.019 62.69 16.64 6.47 2.42 1.70 2.20 1.34 0.18 0.86 0.14 0.73 0.06 200 18 080 0.27 0.9



Jackson, C. M., and Price, J., 2012, Analyses of late Roman glass from the Commandant’s House of the fort at SouthShields, Tyne and Wear, UK, Annales du 18e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre(Thessaloniki 2009), 181–8, AIHV, Corning, NY.

Jackson, C. M., Cool, H. E. M., and Wager, E. C. W., 1998, The manufacture of glass in Roman York, Journal of GlassStudies, 40, 55–61.

Jackson, C. M., Price, J., and Lemke, C., 2009, Glass production in the 1st century A.D. Insights into glass technology,in Annales du 17e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre (Antwerp 2006), 150–156.

Jackson, C. M., Hunter, J. R., Warren, S. E., and Cool, H. E. M., 1991, The analysis of blue–green glass and glassy wastefrom two Romano-British glass working sites, in Archaeometry ’90: international symposium on archaeometry,Heidelberg, Germany 2–6 April 1990 (eds. E. Pernicka and G. A. Wagner), 295–305, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.

Jackson C. M., Wager, E. C., Joyner, L., Day, P. M., Booth, C. A., and Kilikoglou, V., 2003, Small-scale glass makingat Coppergate, York: analytical evidence for the nature of production, Archaeometry, 45, 435–56.

Mainman, A., 1990, Anglo-Scandinavian pottery from York, The Archaeology of York 16/5, Council for British Archae-ology, York.

Meek, A., 2013, Gold glass in Late Antiquity: scientific analysis of the British Museum collection, in New light on oldglass: recent research on Byzantine glass and mosaics (eds. C. Entwistle and L. James), 121–30, British MuseumResearch Publication 179, British Museum, London.

Mirti, P., Casoli, A., and Appolonia, L., 1993, Scientific analysis of Roman glass from Augusta Praetoria, Archaeometry,35, 225–40.

Paynter, S., 2006, Analyses of colourless Roman glass from Binchester, County Durham, Journal of ArchaeologicalScience, 33, 1037–57.

Paynter, S., 2008, Experiments in the reconstruction of Roman wood-fired glassworking furnaces: waste products andtheir formation processes, Glass Studies, 50, 271–90.

Paynter, S., 2010, Analyses of colourless Roman glass, in The beautiful rooms are empty. Excavations at BinchesterRoman Fort, County Durham 1976–1981 and 1986–1991. Part 2 (I. Ferris), 333–8, Durham County Council,Durham.

Paynter, S., and Jackson, C. M., forthcoming, The supply, use and recycling of colourless glass in Roman Britain.Price, J., 2005, Glass-working and glassworkers in cities and towns, in Roman working lives and urban living (eds. A.

MacMahon and J. Price), 167–90, Oxbow, Oxford.Price, J., and Cottam, S., 1998, Romano-British glass vessels: a handbook, Practical Handbooks in Archaeology, no. 14,

Council for British Archaeology, York.Sayre, E. V., 1963, The intentional use of antimony and manganese in ancient glasses, in Advances in glass technology:

history papers and discussions of the technical papers (eds. F. R. Matson and G. E. Rindone), 263–82, Plenum Press,New York.

Sayre, E. V., 1964, Some ancient glass specimens with compositions of particular archaeological significance, 1–25,Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.

Schibille, N., Degryse, P., O’Hea, M., Izmer, A., Vanhaecke, F., and Mckenzie, J., 2012, Late Roman glass from the‘Great Temple’ at Petra and Khirbet Et-Tannur, Jordan—technology and provenance, Archaeometry, 54, 997–1022.

Silvestri, A., 2008, The coloured glass of the Iulia Felix, Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1489–501.Silvestri, A., Molin, G., and Salviulo, G., 2008, The colourless glass of Iulia Felix, Journal of Archaeological Science,

35, 331–41.Tal, O., Jackson-Tal, R. E., and Freestone, I. C., 2004, New evidence of the production of raw glass at late Byzantine

Apollonia–Arsuf, Israel, Journal of Glass Studies, 46, 51–66.Thirion-Merle, V., 2005, Les verres de Beyrouth et les verres du Haut Empire dans le monde Occidental et Oriental: étude

archéométrique, Journal of Glass Studies, 47, 37–53.Turner, W. E. S., and Rooksby, H. P., 1959, A study of the opalising agents in ancient glasses throughout three thousand

four hundred years, Glastechnische Berichte, 8, 17–28.Velde, B., 1990, Alumina and calcium oxide content of glass found in Western and Northern Europe, first to ninth

centuries, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 9, 105–17.Vichy, M., Picon, M., and Thirion-Merle, V., 2003, Le manganèse comme impureté, décolorant ou colorant des verres au

natron, Bulletin de l’AFAV, 15–17.



'A Great Big Melting Pot: Exploring Patterns of Glass Supply, Consumption and Recycling in Roman...

Documents

Transcript of 'A Great Big Melting Pot: Exploring Patterns of Glass Supply, Consumption and Recycling in Roman...